Search

The management of idiopathic scoliosis (IS) in skeletally immature patients should aim at three-dimensional deformity correction, without compromising spinal and chest growth. In 2019, the US Food and Drug Administration approved the first instrumentation system for anterior vertebral body tethering (AVBT), under a Humanitarian Device Exception, for skeletally immature patients with curves having a Cobb angle between 35° and 65°.To summarize current evidence about the efficacy and safety of AVBT in the management of IS in skeletally immature patients.From January 2014 to January 2021, Ovid Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, Scopus, Web of Science, Google Scholar and PubMed were searched to identify relevant studies. The methodological quality of the studies was evaluated and relevant data were extracted.Seven clinical trials recruiting 163 patients were included in the present review. Five studies out of seven were classified as high quality, whereas the remaining two studies were classified as moderate quality. A total of 151 of 163 AVBT procedures were performed in the thoracic spine, and the remaining 12 tethering in the lumbar spine. Only 117 of 163 (71.8%) patients had a nonprogressive curve at skeletal maturity. Twenty-three of 163 (14.11%) patients required unplanned revision surgery within the follow-up period. Conversion to posterior spinal fusion (PSF) was performed in 18 of 163 (11%) patients.AVBT is a promising growth-friendly technique for treatment of IS in growing patients. However, it has moderate success and perioperative complications, revision and conversion to PSF.

BACKGROUND Rotator cuff (RC) tears are one of the most frequent pathologies within the shoulder girdle. Hand dominance and older age are associated with RC tears. Two different surgical procedures, the mini-open (MO) and all-arthroscopic (AA) approach, represented the standard of treatment. AIM To compare the clinical and biomechanical outcomes of two surgical techniques (AA vs MO procedure) performed to address the painful shoulder syndrome with partial or total supraspinatus tendon tear. METHODS Eighty-eight participants, 50 following RC repair with AA and 38 with MO approach, were recruited in the present cross-sectional case-control study (ORTHO-SHOULDER, Prot. 0054602). All patients underwent postoperative clinical evaluation for pain (Visual analogic scale), impairment, and disability (disability of the arm, shoulder, and hand) and limitation in daily activity (Constant-Murley score). Patients’ shoulder mobility was also assessed in our Laboratory of Functional Movement through a wearable inertial sensor and surface electromyography to monitor kinematics and muscle activity during the movement on the frontal (abduction/adduction) and sagittal (flexion-extension) planes. RESULTS No statistically significant differences between the two procedures were observed in either main clinical score or range of motion. A significant increase in velocity during the movement execution and a higher contribution of upper trapezius muscles were found in the AA group compared with MO patients. CONCLUSION In terms of clinical scores, our findings were in line with previous results. However, the use of technology-based assessment of shoulder mobility has revealed significant differences between the two techniques in terms of mean velocity and pattern of muscle activation.